Hello all,

almost a week has gone by, and this GCD seems a bit stuck.
Several people have made comments and suggestions (not all going into the
same direction), but resulting in few changes to the document. I have
taken some time off from the discussion, to work on GCD 006, but also
since there is not much point in Gabber and me exchanging the same
arguments over and over again.

Personally I would like to hear more voices on topics I feel important:
- Keep the 1 year delay for losing commit access.
  (I understand Gabber's argument that "1 year" is also "several months",
  so writing "several months" would not invalidate the current manual;
  I still think that repeating the "1 year" from the manual would be good.)
- Drop the distinction between "active committers" and "passive committers".
Where is the consensus moving on these topics? I could live with how
things are formulated (with the understanding that "several months" does
not overwrite "1 year"), but would still prefer to change them.

If I understood Chris correctly, he would prefer to split the GCD into one
about teams in general, and one about maintainers. Personally I have no
preference and could live with both options (but see below...).

Concerning the maintainers, as others I do not think that a 1 year term
is reasonable, in particular if renewal is to be done through a GCD (why
speak about an appendix? what would the corresponding body of the GCD be?).
A GCD takes about two months with discussion and deliberation periods,
and we do not want to spend the Novembers and Decembers of every year to
discuss maintainers. With more traditional voting, it might be feasible.
Another possibility: Three maintainers with three year terms and one of
them replaced every year; and maybe a limit of two consecutive terms?
Many approaches are possible.
So maybe the maintainers part indeed needs more thoughts? Maintainers
should definitely be mentioned in this document (since they grant commit
access), but maybe details of how they are determined should be
postponed to another GCD?

In any case, I think we need some more active consensus seeking; be it
by Gabber, the sponsor Simon or other people chiming in.

Andreas


Reply via email to